More thoughts on the 200-year test

(This of course refers to the previous post about the question, Will any pop music made since 1950 last 200 years?)

*Pop music with lyrics, as opposed to, say, instrumental classical music, depends not just on quality but also on context. It captures listeners' lives and attitudes -- and lives and attitudes can shift dramatically in 200 years. For a song to last two centuries, it must have a quality that's so high it makes up for a near-zero in the context category, a hurdle that was lower in centuries past. Therefore, Murray might be wrong that "accomplishment" in music is declining; music is perhaps just becoming more context-dependent, with a new song for each situation.

*Partially for this reason, most people stick with the music they heard growing up. Everyone who grew up between 1950 and today will be dead by 2200.

*Some people are able to pass these tastes on to their kids, but this weakens with each generation. The question: If my dad listens to a lot of Beatles and I listen to a little Beatles, will my great-great-whatever grandchildren listen to any Beatles at all? In other words, will interest in the best music from the last 50 years even off before reaching zero?

*If something does last 200 years, we shouldn't assume it will be something that was fully appreciated in its time. Bach wasn't. Maybe some independent-label band from the mid-1980s will finally get the respect it's due in 2185. Or maybe the Bach of Pop died last year, and his wife is discovering his home recordings in the attic as you read this.